User talk:Orion Rezil
I especially like the improved main page graphic.Baggins 20:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Many thanks :) I've been playing the game since I've been 4, so I'm just a tad bit obsessed ;) Orion Rezil 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC) :You know I actually kind of like the Quest for Glory text in original remake (the one engraved in the stone in the introduction). Could you try some graphic editing with it to see how it might look? Maybe find the font that was used?Baggins 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC) ::It's worth a shot - though might have to have each individual letter as "A.GIF" for it to work right. Orion Rezil 15:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC) :::Cool, I hope it works out. If it doesn't the QFG 3 is still a good choice (looks interesting and is certainly the most unique). I never found the later game's logos to be as interesting as the one in the remake and QFG3s. Five's font style was pretty good at least gold 3-d look to it, slick (but sorta boring layout). I like the text in the logo stacked from top to bottom rather than being read left to right. It also appeared kinda "disney-ish" (that's not necessarily bad though). Fives was definitely better than the one used in four (too red, not enough detail). QFG II style was pretty cool too, though color is bland when you take into account the vga/svga games in the series (not counting the fan remake here). Of course that's discussing the in-game font. There were some unique font styles on the boxes too. I liked the QFG1 remake and QFG3 box logo the best. The font with all the overlapping lines coming from the tails of the q, g, and y.Baggins 09:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) QFG4.5 controversy Ah yes I know how controversial the game is. Please try to keep the discussion to the talk page, and avoid war edits. Try to maintain neutrality. This is a generic warning, given to both parties involved :). No hard feelings intended.Baggins 17:37, June 26, 2010 (UTC) : *sigh* First off, the first edit had a mis-link which was by my error. My second edit fixed that link, and reposted to the 'new' policy. I also think that the 'trivia' has misleading info, as nobody was banned because of the game - and that post that was linked to was a specific warning from one person not taking the hint when told not to post. (They did post, thus the edit done by Elsa.) At least get the facts straight. Accusing QFMG of banning people or threatining because of the game when it isn't true does bother me. Yes posts were deleted, and private messages's were sent out to the posters about not discussing the game. Those that didn't listen to these warnings had their threads locked (Basic forum management there, nothing controversial). Also, how this 'policy' is considred QFG 4.5 trivia amuses me. And to think this all started because I tried to clear up a few things and the edit was removed due to it being 'speculation.' :/ Orion Rezil 19:29, June 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Again, I wasn't going after you. I'm just trying to avert an issue between both of you.Baggins 19:09, June 26, 2010 (UTC) ::I want to be polite but you're wrong. It is better that information regarding QfMG, or any other site, should be how it looks to an outsider than an insider. And the information wasn't incorrect. QfMG does remove or edit posts about QfG 4.5, and users are threatened with being banned if they bring it up. And there was no rule about posting messages about 4.5. So everything that I input into the article was correct. What you put was speculation. You stated that "most members" view the game a certain way, but I don't think there was ever a poll on the matter, was there? At most, all you can say is how the admin of the site feels about the game. Oh, and since you were the one to edit everything that I put into the article, which was all correct, I think you should have contacted me. In the future, please do! Thanks =) Cronquist 19:22, June 26, 2010 (UTC) :::Perhaps if outside interpretation isn't correct, and misleading, then the information shouldn't even be posted. Remember the whole idea of avoiding "original research" in most wikipedias.Baggins 19:26, June 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::Again, more controversy? An outsider of the forums trying to say somebody who know's what's going on is incorrect? I've not disputed the deletion of posts, but you you'd have read what I said above, they were given a private warning and did not listen. They were NOT threatened to be banned because of QFG4.5, they were threatened to be banned because they did not listen to warnings. BIG difference there. Orion Rezil 19:29, June 26, 2010 (UTC) ::I have to side with Orion on this. An outsider's impression (without an understanding of what is actually going on) is misleading, and can't be considered "fact".Baggins 19:34, June 26, 2010 (UTC) :::You seem to be really argumentative, Orion Rezil, so much so that I don't think it would ever be possible to reach an understanding with you (particularly since you are putting words in my mouth), so I don't think it's a good idea to respond to anything you've said. I'll take my follow-up question to Baggins to my talk page.Cronquist 20:51, June 26, 2010 (UTC)